My mother is quite heavy into new age mysticism and such, and has heard from several "ascended masters" as well as several seers and mediums, that in 2010 the US economy will disolve, that the country will become literally divided into 6 separate chunks, that.... cats and dogs will live together in harmony.... pandemonium essentially.

I take my mother's ideas with a grain of salt, as I take anyone's ideas. However, I stumbled upon this article today, taken from the WSJ, that is telling me the same things that my mother said, just from a completely different, and many would say more credible, perspective.

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with his whole premise...I'll give that the U.S. economy is not in good shape...but the Great Depression didn't destroy the United States any more than the current economy will.

I would think that for the United States to dissolve would take some other major political or social issues such as those behind the American Civil War of the 1860s and I just don't see it happening...especially not into 6 sections. Mexico is in no position to take over anything, and I fail to see how Alaska would end up under Russian control or how any part of the country would end up under control over any other foreign power without acts of war.

To surmise..my opinion is that he's full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Well now....that's a real possibilty. Not so sure that it will happen though, but come to think of it, we've had two civil wars in the past because of economic's and political rivalries. And regrettably, we could be in for another if at least half the nation doesn't get back on it's economic toes (so to speak) and our current government just keeps screwing around; pulling the same crap they've been doing lately with this economy.

This guy, Panarin, sounds like he is obsessed (possibly to the point orgasm) with USA's demise.

Pre-emptive notice to the mods: I am feeling a bit snarky and sarcastic. You may have to smack me around a little.

Quote:

Prof. Panarin, 50 years old, is not a fringe figure. A former KGB analyst, he is dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats.

Ah. A "Killer-Green-Bud" feller, eh? Cheech and Chong would have a blast.

Quote:

But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin,

WHAT?! Kremlin???!!! You mean this guy is working for King K.Rool--the jerk who tried to steal Donkey Kong's banana hoard? ZOMG!

Quote:

which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.

Really now? You know what? It's also been speculated that China, India, and other affluent countries are about to take the helm of "first power nation" in the world. So, Russia has some serious competition if that is true. You can make many an outlandish speculation, not that it really means much until it materializes in some form.

[Meanwhile]: Zangief must be really happy as he yells "Mother Russia" after a match of pounding some poor Marvel rival or fellow Capcom icon into the ground. [/sarcasm]

Quote:

A polite and cheerful man with a buzz cut, Mr. Panarin insists he does not dislike Americans. But he warns that the outlook for them is dire.

Seriously now? I had no idea.

Quote:

"There's a 55-45% chance right now that disintegration will occur," he says. "One could rejoice in that process," he adds, poker-faced. "But if we're talking reasonably, it's not the best scenario -- for Russia." Though Russia would become more powerful on the global stage, he says, its economy would suffer because it currently depends heavily on the dollar and on trade with the U.S.

Hmm. Wreaks of ambivalence, but whatever.

Funny, all the economic sources I have come across (and some table scraps by the Trends Research Institute) say that while they see the economy's double dip coming up on us in our recession hard (estimate hitting Jan.-Feb. once the holiday 'boost' effect wears off) it doesn't seem to mean much. Even as bleak as it is right now, I do not see an utter collapse and downfall in the near term. I see a painful and slow year ahead of us thereafter its onset.

Quote:

Mr. Panarin posits, in brief, that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.

Mmmmmmmmmmm, nope. Wishful thinking. I'll agree those factors are contributory to our recession, but each have a counteracting effect that nullifies them significantly.

Quote:

Mr. Panarin's apocalyptic vision "reflects a very pronounced degree of anti-Americanism in Russia today," says Vladimir Pozner, a prominent TV journalist in Russia. "It's much stronger than it was in the Soviet Union."

Mr. Pozner and other Russian commentators and experts on the U.S. dismiss Mr. Panarin's predictions. "Crazy ideas are not usually discussed by serious people," says Sergei Rogov, director of the government-run Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, who thinks Mr. Panarin's theories don't hold water.

Mr. Panarin's résumé includes many years in the Soviet KGB, an experience shared by other top Russian officials. His office, in downtown Moscow, shows his national pride, with pennants on the wall bearing the emblem of the FSB, the KGB's successor agency. It is also full of statuettes of eagles; a double-headed eagle was the symbol of czarist Russia.

The professor says he began his career in the KGB in 1976. In post-Soviet Russia, he got a doctorate in political science, studied U.S. economics, and worked for FAPSI, then the Russian equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency. He says he did strategy forecasts for then-President Boris Yeltsin, adding that the details are "classified."

This all speaks for itself. I'll let that marinate in here like a fart.

Skipping over some...

Quote:

California will form the nucleus of what he calls "The Californian Republic," and will be part of China or under Chinese influence.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Lolwut? I actually LIVE in CA. Granted it's so minced it might as well be a foreign country...where's all the heavy chinese influence, exactly? It actually looks more heavy Mexican influence in some areas. Others are just diced up, and you have rich people all over with their domiciles and little communities.

The north, is a bunch of redwood dwelling artists and such. Small economy, but very beautiful places to camp. South is cities and such except up in the hills. Lots of bums, loads of Mexicans, and a lot of blacks around Compton and Riverside.

The coast: meh, it's a mixture of retired folks and young people last I checked. Haven't been out there in few years. I suppose in 3-5 years time there could be a mass influx of Asians that I don't know about.

Central north to south...pretty spread out, unless he's talking about Sacramento (Hi everyone!--though I'm a ways off out in the 'booneys') and San Francisco. Even then...I don't see what he's talking about...

All in all, CA might be its own 'republic' but TBH unless certain industries pick up around here, we really aren't going to be much of anything. In fact Michigan has been playing commercials to corporations thinking about relocating somewhere else to get out of silicon valley.

Well professor, looks like you don't know as much as you think you do about CA.

(EDIT: Oh, and the sierra mountains bordering NV have their own little economy that seems quite recession resistant, BTW. So unless it's in the nearby valley areas from north to south which seem quite unpopulated and undeveloped at this time, I *still* don't see where there is a little china about to take California over...Maybe hiding out in southern Nevada's missile silos, and 100-200+yr old mines with all their unstable dynamite?)...

Quote:

Texas will be the heart of "The Texas Republic," a cluster of states that will go to Mexico or fall under Mexican influence.

Hmm. Comments anyone? mimartin? Sam D.? S.D. Nihil? Tobias Reiper?
Somehow this rings false to me. I last visited Texas in 2001, so it could have become heavily Mexican in that time period. I thought Mexico wasn't in much a position to take anything over?

Quote:

Washington, D.C., and New York will be part of an "Atlantic America" that may join the European Union. Canada will grab a group of Northern states Prof. Panarin calls "The Central North American Republic." Hawaii, he suggests, will be a protectorate of Japan or China, and Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.

Mmmmm, bull****.

Quote:

"It would be reasonable for Russia to lay claim to Alaska; it was part of the Russian Empire for a long time." A framed satellite image of the Bering Strait that separates Alaska from Russia like a thread hangs from his office wall. "It's not there for no reason," he says with a sly grin.

More romancing the idea of Alaska being under Russian control again? Dude, hey, not that there's really anything wrong with whatever gets you off, but you seriously need to keep it behind closed doors, and I mean literally.

You know what, I'll read the rest of the article later. I'm late for karaoke right now!!! However I *will* say that was quite the lawlfest!

He says most in the audience were skeptical. "They didn't believe me."

Shocking.

Odd how all of the secessionist views that must be rife in America (considering it's going to fall in less than a year, apparently) have been so well concealed from the media. It reads more like some grasping hope for the return to prominence of Russia, or perhaps one might argue the Communist state, based on the ideas of Chinese eminence.

I'm sure there is sime immensely complex and altogether incomprehensible economic rationale behind all this, but I'd love to know why each 'Republic' would be likely to first fall under anyone's external control, second why those particular countries? As said by others, I can't see Mexico staging any kind of invasion sweeping through Texas and all of those other states, or persuading people to vote to join them...and the idea of a European America is pretty good too - Turkey is seen as a borderline European state: I wonder what that makes the Eastern US?

Though, if Russia gets Alaska back, can we have the Thirteen Colonies back?

While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

As of 3/14/10, TSL is restored. The Sith Lords Restored Content Modification by Stoney and Zbyl has been finished and can be downloaded here.

While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

America has always been dominated by two inconsistent ideologies, smear campaigns and mudslinging have existed since the Election of 1796' in the States; however, that didn't lead to civil wars every 10 years. The losers always screamed apocalypse while the winners slowly lost popularity.

Quote:

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

Isn't America like 90% urban now? Your also over-generalizing.

Quote:

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

Funny, usually it takes a dictator to maintain stability after revolution.

Quote:

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

I'm surprised, people would give up their homes, lives, stability, and their child's safety all because they lost an election? I don't think the cultural differences nor the motives are present for a civil war.

At the end of the presentation, he says many delegates asked him to autograph copies of the map showing a dismembered U.S.

Oh man, this loon bag actually has a fan following. More propaganda.

Quote:

He based the forecast on classified data supplied to him by FAPSI analysts, he says. He predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in.

Reeeeeally? And, uh, I suppose the foreign powers will all be on the same side, riiiiiight? I think if they align with the infighting left before it turns on itself, the fracture will amplify and it will be a world war on our soil which would ruin the very thing they wish to take over. Or if the infighting already occurred, they would come in and fight/subjugate the inhabitants AFTER they got done fighting each other outside the U.S.A. Which assumes the Government inside U.S.A. isn't manipulatively still alive and functioning. Destroying that would be, as the article admitted, to nobody's economic advantage.

Interestingly enough, I don't see our friend has taken any of that into account or that more likely they all would just bide their time carefully and let a nation or two most friendly to U.S.A. go in and do the dirty work of helping piece the nation back together. Especially considering if economically it is in their best interests. I'm sure they'd all embolden and get a little more cocky.

Either that or the nation most pissed off enough at us comes to seize its assets, which is most likely be be China. It is my understanding that while their economy is a modern equiv of the industrial revolution (or so my penpal ladyfriend in Shenzen City says) it is still infatile, going slow and fragile like it has a bad stomach blockage--in an economic sense. Certainly correct me if I'm wrong on that and China is roaring and ready for world domination.

In the meantime I'll be shoveling snow and petting my wookiee.

Quote:

Americans hope President-elect Barack Obama "can work miracles," he wrote. "But when spring comes, it will be clear that there are no miracles."

Why do we even have to wait that long? I think the most gullible of American people are already waking up to that reality and it isn't even Christmas yet.

Quote:

the article, emphasis mine
The article prompted a question about the White House's reaction to Prof. Panarin's forecast at a December news conference. "I'll have to decline to comment," spokeswoman Dana Perino said amid much laughter.

For Prof. Panarin, Ms. Perino's response was significant. "The way the answer was phrased was an indication that my views are being listened to very carefully," he says.

Really now? You think that's nervous laughter? Why?

Oh yes your views are indeed being listened to very carefully, professor. Not in the way you think.

Put another way, I think this guy could be a real comedian.

Quote:

the article, emphasis mine

The professor says he's convinced that people are taking his theory more seriously. People like him have forecast similar cataclysms before, he says, and been right. He cites French political scientist Emmanuel Todd. Mr. Todd is famous for having rightly forecast the demise of the Soviet Union -- 15 years beforehand. "When he forecast the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, people laughed at him," says Prof. Panarin.

Really? Well, let's see now... is America or has America ever been, the U.S.S.R.?

Butt-Head: Uhh, No.Beavis: Thank you, Drive Thru. Meh-heheh-heh.

Besides, even if we are close to some kind of collapse, where is this tremendous imminent upheval going to start in America? This revolution? Seriously, I'm asking in real earnest. I look around me and I see upset people, but they aren't clawing at everything as though we're about to have a violent showdown. Too apathetic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW01

Odd how all of the secessionist views that must be rife in America (considering it's going to fall in less than a year, apparently) have been so well concealed from the media.

Yeah I'm still trying to figure that one out myself. Especially considering how nosy and biased to one polarity or the other that the media is in the U.S. Wish I could afford *THAT* kind of protective concealment of information.

Quote:

It reads more like some grasping hope for the return to prominence of Russia, or perhaps one might argue the Communist state, based on the ideas of Chinese eminence.

Which raises several questions alone on how China will pick it up--I wonder what they have to say about this. Besides, wouldn't that pose an obstacle to Russia "getting its piece of land back"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord of Hunger

While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

It would have to be a long time from now: people are rather docile, currently. In actuality I think the real division is between the people, the wildcards and the elite. If the elite on both 'sides' are working in tandem (think about it: same government, 2 sides of the same coin as it is now), then what it really boils down to is how those in charge will best liquidate their assets and leave the rest of us out in the cold to fend for ourselves.

It would make no sense to square off in an actual combatant war unless things got so horribly bad it was about to fall apart anyways.

Quote:

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

Well, that is a setup for failure if a foreign entity were to try to even infiltrate it and ally itself, let alone 2 or 3. Seeing as how Mexicans and Natives want to reclaim land, they aren't likely to trust another overlord government to 'share' it with them. They'd dead-weight, or possibly even turn on the new entity. The rest, well, they'd just put along for the ride but similarly deadweight when it was their turn to help the foreign entity. Bleed them dry.

More likely, the elite would be working together hidden away behind the scenes and would just declare martial law like a dictatorship. Their elite squadron at their command.

Quote:

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

Actually, no it would be a state of martial law with our supposedly "split" government all around, with interlopers, defectors, multiple state splits, and infighting within the parties and classes. The elite of the "sides" would come to a grudging agreement first on top of the heads of just others who don't fit one clique or another. Devil with silver tongue, offer the little people rewards and incentive to join them. Or more likely 'offers they can't refuse' if you catch my drift.

Foreign aid would then maybe occur as their means of settling the problem if.F* there was no other way to bring about order. The rest can hide out in the woods. Possibly to be hunted down later for their crimes against society of evasion of serfdom and daring try to live independent of the now dictatorship government. The Elite meanwhile resting atop the underclass like the despicable fat-cats they are and the veil fallen.
*:Geometry or Mathematical acronym for conditional staement beginning "If, and ONLY if."

Quote:

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

It would probably just be a civil split between East and West U.S.A.--which then I can see an N.A.U. forming much as I'd hate to admit it in those circumstances. Mexico and Canada being absorbed into it. Possibly more of Central America too.

We'll murder them all, amid laughter and merriment...except for the few we take home to experiment!

Yeah, I thought his style might not win too many points. He does come off a wee bit smug. Could also be the tool of a writer that the WSJ employed.

I think civil war is a remote, distant possibility at best. What I do fear is the wacky economy most Americans think is doing well when the stock market has a good day. Our dollar is nearing valuelessness.

Oh wow, a Russian says that the US will come to an end...I've heard this bedtime story before...try the Cold War.

Seriously though, no way the US just falls apart like that....let's sell more newspapers by having those kinds of stories...just another story that appeals to the fears...best way to attract an audience...

While I don't agree with his theory, I do think that America is headed towards a civil war that will be far worse than our first one. Our country is actively consumed by two inconsistent ideologies constantly fed to us by our new media and our two political parties/collectives of parasites.

What is likely to happen is a civil war between the most rural states (dominated by "conservatives") and the most urban states (dominated by "liberals"). Who would win? That's up in the air. The Government and Military would be split in half so each side would get an equal portion of the troops, so it'd come down to whether or not the "left" would be hypocritical enough to take up firearms against the "right". Also, it depends on how unified each side is, and since the "left" generally professes itself to have more diversity than the "right" it would be more susceptible to internal division.

There is also the possibility of military intervention from other world powers such as China, Russia, and the European Union, all of which would likely assist the "left" as that faction would be more willing to accept foreign demands.

I do not agree with the time this guy has set up. While I do not believe in the 2012 Theories, that year would be the most likely for a civil war to begin as it would likely be a race between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Either individual achieving victory would be the catalyst for a complete split in this Republic.

Laughable. Pakistan has a much stronger chance of being split by a civil war than the United States has, and Pakistan is still very formidable in its own right.

With its many enemies, enormous nuclear arsenal, rampant nationalism and international reach, the United States cannot possibly afford a civil war in the near future. It's probably hard to see that in America, but it isn't so hard when you're living outside, and where the American Right and Left are only two sides of the same coin. Regardless of which side controls the government, America largely remains the same.

Also, any nations with two stones to rub together for a diplomatic thinktank will know better than to mess with an America in turmoil. It can backfire easily.

All in all, if a 2012 happens, it being caused by an American Civil War is very unlikely. Hell, the stories of both Modern Warfare games are much more credible than that.

One thing that has happened since the civil war is that, at least from where I live, people are much less likely to identify strongly with their state as opposed to the federal government. Don't get me wrong, I really like Texas and I love shoving how awesome it is into other state's faces, but I don't feel a political affiliation with it in the same way I do with the Fed.

Because of that, I'd say it would be extremely unlikely that the US should break up into minor states any time soon. People in America might have their (perhaps overblown) differences, but one thing is certain: virtually all of us like being American. It would take something truly shocking to break that.

No it isn't. At it's worst, it's worth about half as much as it was. The value of money in Zimbabwe is nothing, with 14,000,000% inflation. Even at 10% inflation, the US dollar is still quite strong.

Facts are good. Nearing perhaps was not the correct word, but you may accept/prefer "approaching" "on the road" "plummeting". These are perhaps better descriptives, but not that different really. It is over-alarmist to say nearing at this time, so I concede that point.

As for naysaying, why not naysay? It is the American thing to do, the most American, to speak out when things are screwy. It is something the founders expected us to do, more often and much louder than we have. Complacency has been bred by too many years of easy success, success often garnered for contemporary gains at the cost of the "future" - our present.

If you think that the US is still the pre-eminent power, and that the position is unshakeable, you are a fanboy.

Hmm. Comments anyone? mimartin? Sam D.? S.D. Nihil? Tobias Reiper?
Somehow this rings false to me. I last visited Texas in 2001, so it could have become heavily Mexican in that time period. I thought Mexico wasn't in much a position to take anything over?

The article writer obliviously never meet a Texan. It would take a lot of dead Texans for something like this to happen and heritage means nothing. I have a lot of friends that are of Hispanic decent and they are just as proud to be a Texan. More likely, it would be Mexico under Austin’s influence.

Facts are good. Nearing perhaps was not the correct word, but you may accept/prefer "approaching" "on the road" "plummeting". These are perhaps better descriptives, but not that different really. It is over-alarmist to say nearing at this time, so I concede that point.

No, it really isn't. Listen to some non-marxist economists. The US dollar, while not as strong as it has been in the past, is still doing quite well. And it it not "plummeting", nor is it "on the road", and neither is it "approaching". Many countries still court both US favor and money, that along with US military, social, and economic power and dominance ensure that the US currency will not just "drop off".

Quote:

If you think that the US is still the pre-eminent power, and that the position is unshakeable, you are a fanboy.

I can readily think one, and not the other. The US is still a pre-eminent world power, one with which only a few others can hope or even attempt to compare with. Of course the position is shakeable, no position isn't. But just because it is, does not mean that those who are close have the desire to take it. And even if they wanted to, it is more probable that what would result is a multi-polar world, likely of China-US, then China-Russia-US, then China-India-Russia-US, and then China-EU-India-Russia-US.

"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."

Hey, whoa guys. Ehh, I think most forumites here are under no illusions about a position and its solidity.

So far as America not being #1 in the world anymore: everything hangs in the balance and nothing is for sure about that, *yet*. Moreover I don't quite see how U.S.A. somehow sliding down even to #5 in the world would necessarily mean we give up chunks of our land. Besides, if there is one thing I notice even about American underachievers, they may get shaken down but they aren't contentious for no reason and are persistent and tenacious enough to find a way back up. Sure, Americans are apathetic right now but it wouldn't take too much for too long before we started back on track and gained momentum behind it.

*Are* we on a decline? Sure. We're in trouble right now and only an idiot would deny that. In several years it'll pick back up again and the worst of the recession will be behind us. It may take 20 or 30 years for things to come back completely. By then we quite possibly may not be #1, but I seriously doubt USA will crash and burn because of it.

China IMO is biding their time and getting all it can to try to tip the world currency to theirs and away from the U.S.A. I find that as a challenge to be met, not a fate to be dreaded.

Isn't it rather amusing meanwhile that people like this professor have nothing to do but obsess all day about our demise?

Hrmph. I grew up in Texas. The idea of Texas under Mexican rule is absolutely laughable. Three words come to mind. "Remember The Alamo!" I could see Texas as it's own nation. I can see Texas as part of the (remaining) US. But Texas as part of Mexico? FAT CHANCE! Too many Texans died to free themselves from Mexico. I mean really this guy must have never met a Texan in his life. They are more than proud of the state.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).

Throughout the 90's US defence expenditure was still in the thousands of millions per individual project, aside unit cost and any hope of cost recovery. This is what funded your F-22 and F-35, in effect the SuperHornet is a mild attempt at cost recovery (strictly speaking it's overpriced but is a good enough product to justify the cost).

What has happened since then is cost recovery projects in Europe and the Asia-Pacific have completely fallen apart. At least 15,000-million US dollars were expected to be partially recovered with Block 50/60 F-16 and new F-35 sales which never materialised. The Europeans went and built something better themselves, and the Russians have been selling Flankers and Fulcrums and rock bottom prices...incredibly this is something which completely slipped the minds of US defence/economy analysts back in the 90's.

You see nobody really expected the USSR to collapse economically in 1991 except the KGB (whom were well aware of this course since 1980), so nobody figured into the equation that an economically smashed Soviet Union would be selling its latest military hardware at affordable prices, much cheaper than US material yet with comparable performance. And buying US isn't any guarantee of product support unless certain trade agreements are made (capitalists to the end). Updates are also ridiculously expensive, where Russian updates are cheap or free.

It is in fact this "economic altruism" of communist thought which forms a cultural base in the CIS and many Asiatic regions. Not entirely sound business wise, but given appropriate circumstances can be confounding.

The Euro has basically gotten stronger whilst the US dollar has degraded. The pound has remained fairly consistent, but the biggest impact has been the growth of the Euro, this is expected since the EU has been growing in member nations from the Atlantic seaboard to the Caspian Sea.
The role of the US as the primary defence contractor in Europe has disappeared completely, whilst as a primary industrial power has been degraded by development in Asia and throughout Europe.

I do not think the US will economically collapse immediately, but the cultural lifestyle and strict capitalist theme is based strongly in consumerism and this necessarily has to change or the place will end up looking like Russia does today, which trust me isn't too pretty.

You're way in the red, most of your defence expenditure through the 90's did as much damage to your economy as that of the USSR in the 80's, you're just a little more resilient to begin with so you're feeling it later and more gradually. It's going to get worse before it gets better though. Check out the costs and appropriations of just one of those defence projects like the Raptor, or having whole fleets of supercarriers in service, no less than five independent military organisations plus support and logistics, and domestic industrial empires built on defence contracting.

You've already shot yourselves in the foot just like the Russians did, now you're in an ambulance on the way to the hospital is all.

Funny thing about the idea of TX under Mexico's "wing" is that Mexico is so dysfuntional that perhaps it ought to be the other way around. I think the guy is right about America heading into a world of economic hurt, but the rest of it sounds a bit like a KGB man's wet dream. Of course, if Russia got AK, you can be pretty sure they'd have no problem drilling the oil. The rest of the world be damned.....

I agree, especially the "economic hurt"...no doubt as far as that's concerned, only I think it could eventually lead to at least a insurrection if anything. But I really think the guy is just blowing smoke up our butt's or trying to start a lot of controversy amongst us here in the U.S.A. for the most part, or at least he thinks he is.

It's obvious that the rest of the info that he presents is bogus, take the map for instance: I think he's played the board game of RISK one friggin' too many times in his lifetime over there, I'd say his map looks like a mickey mouse version of the real board game.

Example: Look familar? (Btw, I call 1 and 4 *purifier shakes dice in hand* Muhahahhahahahaha! World Domination! Who dares to tread on me!)

Seriously though, I don't think our economic situation is going to get any better as long as we are under the current elective (people) government.
Which could seriously piss some people off and cause an uprising or something, there has been talk of it in certain social circles and even on the internet at that; which is the most idiotic thing to do IMO, it's not like the government dosen't check for that sort of thing with their search database computers.

Anyway, that dosen't mean anything though, just people talking and complaining I guess. Better yet, like I said before:

The Russian economist in question is also quite a way off on his appraisal of the Russian economy, which mirrors its political instability.
The CIS is still definitely feeling the effects of Soviet collapse and none more acutely than Russia (and the Ukraine), what has been holding Russia together are twofold issues of organised criminal activity among leadership and independent command of the military districts, which remain firmly in the hands of the Supreme Soviet and act quite outside the control of the Russian Parliament. The wars in Georgia for example conflagurated directly against the instructions and assurances of the Parliament (who supported the unified Georgian state, whilst the Supreme Soviet had strategic interests in military bases there and thus funded the pro-Soviet Abkhasian bid for independence, a move unsupported by NATO or the UN).

Essentially this is what is going on in Russia, where instead of the two pronged powerbases in the peripherary CIS nations (the Supreme Soviet being based in Russia), they are instead divided by nationalist uprising and splintered political representation.
Thus the improved economic stability speculated of Russia in recent years is in fact an illusion fostered by increasing troubles at its borders, and the more institutionalised nature of Russian political woes than surrounding territories.

Make no mistake that in terms of average quality of life, Russia is impoverished, with shocking crime rates in particular of violent crime and organised crime, and a relatively low value for common human life. Their industry sells better quality equipment on the export market than it does locally, including defence industry. The politicians and corporate figures however, are the modern Czars for the most part and individual district commanders the aristocracy.
According to local journalists the Soviets are alive and well, and little has changed if not for the worst.

Bleh. So essentially we have Soviet Nationalists stirring it up over there that just so happen to sell good merchandise despite (or in spite of) its poor state of affairs that aren't quite dire yet. Are they on their way back?

If we're going to feel it smoother, slower, and more gradually then will it be anywhere as bad? I ask b/c I have little faith in things so far as politics and economic lifestyles go. I agree that we need to stop doing "stuff" for "stuff" sake. However, it's not *just* defense. It's lifestyle and all that. Fiscal and financial responsibility are often given lip service, but rarely seen acted upon by politicians or citizens in general. "Put this or that on credit and it'll all be fine" so says people. I've little hope, personally.

Sadly, I can see only a few solutions:
America lowers its standards for worker conditions; lowers its minimum wages; or the U.S. ends up absorbing other countries and playing around a lot with uneven playfields in a more real sense (as opposed to empty money) in order to restrengthen industries. Or all the above. Unless there is something I missed.

Fat chance people are going to change their habits unless we collectively got hit over the head with a cactus...which I sadly do not see happening in the near future by any sense of the concept. It takes a common disaster with a fast hard hit to unite people--that is fact. However, *that* would be the last thing we'd need, or so it would seem. Crap.

Well the state of Russian industry is such that US multinationals like Elron speculate they could improve oil production from the CIS Caspian table by several hundred percent, that the Russians are essentially wasting up to 90% of possible oil/fuels production with administrative disarray and poor industry.

The fact Elron and other multinational oil companies are all over Afghanistan and central Asia along with the US military is of deep concern to the Russians, and it the real reason for anti-American sentiments there. And it's not just them, Turkey doesn't like you much either, or the Ukrainians.
You see they firmly believe you're moving chess pieces against Iran and around Afghanistan in order to do the same thing you did with the Persian Gulf. Take the Caspian oil table for yourselves under the cover up of "international policing."

Now the thing about this is they still have a massive Cold War surplus of strategic nuclear capability, the delapidation of their conventional forces has no bearing on this. Any individual district commander could at a whim lay waste to roughly half the planet, and they don't have the same Presidential/Congressional safeguards against subordinate commanders ordering nuclear release that the US does.

Make them paranoid enough and you've got WW3 on your hands. It will be the Clancy style "rogue General" who sends a hundred planet busting warheads into US airspace, probably the Transcaucasus district commander who started the Georgian war.

Meanwhile the US economic situation has forced national interests in central Asia...

European journalists claim the current east-west political climate is in fact more dangerously close to a large scale nuclear exchange today that at any time during the Cold War. This time it is the US whom would have to back down, and nobody in the world believes the Whitehouse or Pentagon are capable of that, particularly given recent international "anti-terrorism" policies which are a thin veil for flagrant human rights violation.

Did you know the United States government is charged by the International Court of human rights violation (specifically regarding "special rendition" policies and Gitmo). The Whitehouse refuses to answer the charges on the basis doing so would force the US to reveal classified material. It's the same thing as saying the rest of the world is subordinate to United States culture and government.

It is this attitude which is destroying your economy. Nobody who doesn't have to wants to import anything from you anymore, your markets are now third world nations and all you get in return is conflict diamonds, useless treaties and credit slips. Yet still you are the world's most eminent consumerists, any American will buy a Playstation well before he gives a loaf of bread to a vagrant. This is killing you.

The US is economically far stronger than the USSR was. What you are feeling now is the economic pinch of frivolous defence expenditure throughout the Cold War, which destroyed the Soviet Union as a political powerbase (it is still a major world power and a formiddable one under the umbrella of the CIS and Supreme Soviet controlled strategic capability).

Actually, what the US is feeling the pinch of is not "frivolous defense spending from the Cold War", but horrible mismanagement of entitlement programs and their expenses. Tearing down the "firewall" between SS and the general fund over 40 years ago has resulted in Congress going on a spending spree with no aim other than re-election. No attempt was made during that time to make sure there'd be money available when the baby boomers started dipping into SS. Defense spending in the US has typically been ~6 to 8% of GDP/GNP, while for the Russians it was 3-4 times higher. Had the US spent that kind of a % of its GDP on defense, the Cold War might have ended a lot sooner, assuming it didn't wreck American finances in that timeframe.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Interesting and well calculated point Totenkopf, but the GDP defence spending is more reflective of national welfare policies than actual logistics. The Soviet and US defence procurement was roughly en par throughout the Cold War and where strategic and avionics development was concerned was higher in the US, backed by privatised contracting in an attempt to feed expenditure back into the economy.
Nevertheless US defence spending from the early 70's began relying heavily upon cost recovery programs. Every individual upgrade type was ridiculously expensive and ridiculously frequent.
The Soviets went the other road with downgraded exports instead of upgraded indigenous models. The total cost of the counter air defence and strategic air defence districts for example were still similar to the combined FX and LFX programs which produced the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters with a lower development cost, even though many more aircraft were procured by the Russians for the same cost. The problem was the Soviets didn't privatise and their economic system didn't allow for much in the way of cost recovery.

Where this gets muted is by the 90's, when Europe stopped buying American and the rest of the world got better Russian models cheaper. You can get a MiG-29A for the cost of an F-16A and according to the Luftwaffe it's as good as an F-16C Block 50 on any day of the week. That model is actually more expensive and has still been superseded by the newer Block 55 (which finally has a helmet designator).

Had the US spent as much of its GDP as the Soviets on defence budget, it is because of the capitalist economic system that it would've disentegrated long before the Soviets did. Money you spend on contracting, privatisation and social welfare support the Russians never needed to, the benefits were granted outside the standing economy.

Where the Soviets fell down was in empire. The US makes a trade partner and it creates industrialist opportunities whilst gradually infusing itself into the local political culture.
When the Russians did this, they invaded full scale on day one with the military, then took the new Satellite's welfare and resource concerns upon their own shoulders. Each of the Satellite states thus sapped Russian economics and resources rather than promoted industrialism and profiteering.

This is what has been mostly changed since the Soviet breakup, all CIS leaders are now essentially big time capitalist industrialists to the extent of organised crime bosses, or are insane nationalists fully halfway on the road to Hitler.
It's like having Al Capone win the war against organised crime in the thirties.

That period roughly 1988-98 marked phenonemal defence expenditure in the US for a political climate which no longer exists, with no chance of cost recovery, and it was cost recovery projections which governed defence spending at that time.
It is highly likely this was the primary reasoning for the Gulf War.